I have finally gotten around to reading Triumph of the City by Edward Glaeser. I've been enjoying this book and as a result you will be subjected to quotes of the book at length and my thoughts about it. You should pick it up; especially if you, like me, think cities are tantamount to a living organism.
I've always known that there are wealthy areas and there are poor areas but I have never really thought anything more of it until Mr. Glaeser put it like this:
That innately makes sense when you think about it. Just take a commuter train from the end to the city and you'll notice there are two separate patterns (this of course can vary from line to line, my example is the Rockport line) the first is the people who get on at the end of the line (Gloucester) and get off in the later third (Salem, Swampscott, Lynn, Chelsea) and the second are those who get on in the middle (Manchester, Beverly Farms, and Beverly) and get off in the city. Those who live at the end of the line for the most part live too far away to commute into the city every day (though some do) the next third is just far enough away from the city to be quaint and cosy but close enough to work there. The final third is the not yet gentrified area or where the former urban poor are being pushed to as a result of gentrification (reverse gentrification).
All gentrification is is the ever expansion of the inner city (which is now for rich people, not the urban poor) through the reversal of white flight. For whatever reason, the wealthy (white is not all that accurate) love living in the city and because of their penchant for quaint town houses there is an inevitable limit in the supply of real estate. Those of you who know Boston think of the ever expanding South End. The dividing line between the South End and Roxbury is Massachusetts Avenue, or maybe it's Melnea Cass Blvd. Regardless most can agree that with every passing year the latter is becoming more and more true. As a result of the demand developers buy up Roxbury and resell it as the South End. The constant demand insures that the city will continue to grow up and out, pushing the less fortunate and businesses to the periphery
What does this mean? I don't know really. I like to think of it as the city growing, harvesting the raw materials that surround it and growing ever larger. As transportation links become better and more common we will see the city continue to grow as more real estate becomes available and more desirable to those who work and play in the city. Is this how it should be? Again I don't know. While I myself love my two family and the square I live in I feel guilty for not living in a large apartment complex which is better environmentally and far more efficient. Yet you can not just make people live in high rises and tell others they can not afford to live in the neighborhood they grew up in. We should be integrating not alienating those people. Is that possible? I would like to think that in the end society tends towards equilibrium in order to avoid conflict.
I've always known that there are wealthy areas and there are poor areas but I have never really thought anything more of it until Mr. Glaeser put it like this:
New York, Boston, and Philadelphia have four transit income zones: an inner zone (like central Manhattan or Beacon Hill) where the rich commute by foot or public transit, a second zone (the edges of New York's outer boroughs, or Roxbury in Boston) where the poor commute by public transit, a third zone (Westchester County or Wellesley) where the rich drive, and an outer zone comprising distant areas where less wealthy people live and drive. Paris likewise has excellent public transportation and consequently has an inner zone where the rich use the Métro or walk. The next zone has the poor living in more distant areas that are still connected to the city by train.
That innately makes sense when you think about it. Just take a commuter train from the end to the city and you'll notice there are two separate patterns (this of course can vary from line to line, my example is the Rockport line) the first is the people who get on at the end of the line (Gloucester) and get off in the later third (Salem, Swampscott, Lynn, Chelsea) and the second are those who get on in the middle (Manchester, Beverly Farms, and Beverly) and get off in the city. Those who live at the end of the line for the most part live too far away to commute into the city every day (though some do) the next third is just far enough away from the city to be quaint and cosy but close enough to work there. The final third is the not yet gentrified area or where the former urban poor are being pushed to as a result of gentrification (reverse gentrification).
All gentrification is is the ever expansion of the inner city (which is now for rich people, not the urban poor) through the reversal of white flight. For whatever reason, the wealthy (white is not all that accurate) love living in the city and because of their penchant for quaint town houses there is an inevitable limit in the supply of real estate. Those of you who know Boston think of the ever expanding South End. The dividing line between the South End and Roxbury is Massachusetts Avenue, or maybe it's Melnea Cass Blvd. Regardless most can agree that with every passing year the latter is becoming more and more true. As a result of the demand developers buy up Roxbury and resell it as the South End. The constant demand insures that the city will continue to grow up and out, pushing the less fortunate and businesses to the periphery
What does this mean? I don't know really. I like to think of it as the city growing, harvesting the raw materials that surround it and growing ever larger. As transportation links become better and more common we will see the city continue to grow as more real estate becomes available and more desirable to those who work and play in the city. Is this how it should be? Again I don't know. While I myself love my two family and the square I live in I feel guilty for not living in a large apartment complex which is better environmentally and far more efficient. Yet you can not just make people live in high rises and tell others they can not afford to live in the neighborhood they grew up in. We should be integrating not alienating those people. Is that possible? I would like to think that in the end society tends towards equilibrium in order to avoid conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment